Obama Reverses U.S. Position on LGBT Issues at the UN

[kpete]

Source: UN Dispatch

Obama Reverses U.S. Position on LGBT Issues at the UN
Mark Leon Goldberg - February 19, 2009 - 10:05am

In late December the United Nations General Assembly held a symbolic vote on a statement calling for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. France spearheaded the resolution, which was a 13 point declaration "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention." The statement received 60 votes in support, mostly from Europe and South America. Opposing the resolution, were the United States, the Holy See, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. At the time, the Bush administration couched its objection to the measure in legal technicalities.

Well, that was then. This is now: At the so-called "Durban Review Conference" on racism and xenophonia underway in Geneva, Europe again put forward language condemning “all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation.” According to UN Watch, "The Czech Republic on behalf of the E.U., with the support of New Zealand, the United States, Colombia, Chili on behalf of the South American states, the Netherlands, Argentina and a few others, took the floor in support." (emphasis mine).

The efforts to include language on discrimination based on sexual orientation ended up failing for lack of support from non-western countries. Still, it's relieving to see that the United States is now back on the side of the enlightened on this issue of basic human rights.

Read more: http://www.undispatch.com/node/7729

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Fantastic news. n/t

[Jeroen]

13. Absolutely, great news! n/t

[Beartracks]

2. Wow, the Holy See?

What did the Vatican object to? I know the Church doesn't condone or approve of homosexuality, and regard it as a sin; but to vote against banning "criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention"? That doesn't sound right. That little snippet of the resolution by itself could be used to impute that the Church supports executions, which they decidedly do not. For example, the Church doesn't condone or approve of, say, murder, but they do not support the execution of murderers.

Was there something else in the UN resolution that the Church was objecting to? Did the resolution include an international framework for civil protections or liberties that the Church finds objectionable (like marriage rights)?


P.S. Glad Obama's Administration is changing course, btw.

[Nevernose]

5. Maybe some kind of weird, hypocritical Muslim butt-kissing?

Which the Catholic Church seems to do occasionally?

Note that I'm not slandering either Muslims or Catholics, just pointing out that occasionally the Holy See does go out of its way to get along with other religions. Was the last UN vote during one of the semi-regular muslim-catholic flare-ups? One of those "what-we-have-in-common" moments?

[Aristus]

42. Depends on what context that support is put into. John Paul II asserted that Muslims

were not going to Hell for being Muslims, and that Jews, Christians, and Muslims were all brothers and worshippers of the same God, the God of Abraham. For a conservative Catholic, that was a pretty big step toward universal brotherhood. JPII wasn't right all the time, but he nailed it there. That wasn't Muslim butt-kissing.

[CatholicEdHead]

6. They were worried that it may bring about gay marriage in countries

if this passed. Rome is so out of touch.

[truebrit71]

7. Must have been something in there about hiding and protecting child molesters...

...being an actual crime that you would get prosectued for...

[Webster Green]

10. No shit! The Catholic Church is so fucked.

I bailed out when I was 10 years old. The Church is fucking creepy and loony.

[TheWraith]

11. You can thank Pope Rat.

Who thinks that it disapproving of homosexuality being criminalized is the first step towards legalizing gay marriage.

[DWilliamsamh]

24. It isn't the Obama administration that is changing course.

Obama never supported criminal penalties attached to sexual orientation. The course that is being changed is the United States official objection to a declaration that such penalties are a violation of world wide human rights.

[Arugula Latte]

51. It's even more ridiculous because a huge percentage of priests are closet cases.

[Hekate]

3. >Sudden sigh of relief< We are rejoining the ranks of civilized nations.

and to President Obama. And

Hekate

[Ishoutandscream2]

33. Yes, we lived in the Dark Ages too long

Again, just think if McCain had been elected...

[silverweb]

4. A President who means what he says.

"The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea ... that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." ~President Barack Obama, Inaugural Address, 1/20/2009

And acts in accordance with his words.

[bertman]

8. Headed in the right direction again. Thank you, President Obama!!

[SpartanDem]

9. Nice to see us move out of the Dark Ages

[Jim Sagle]

12. Psych! The Warrenites get rick-rolled.

[OneBlueSky]

14. kudos to President Obama and his administration . . .

for dragging the United States out of Dark Ages -- at least on this issue . . . it's also nice to have a president who actually cares about campaign promises and follows through on them, rather than just using them to garner votes and then consigning them to the scrap heap of history . . .

thank you, Mr. President! . . . ya done good! . . .

[vaberella]

15. Wasn't it just 3 weeks ago people said Obama was a homophobe

and he was still pushing don't ask don't tell?! I think this is the step in the right direction and he didn't forget his campaign promise. People were up and arms and going all matters of ridiculous when amongst the group, like myself, some were saying give it sometime. I see this as one step to the next level and I'm waiting, now impatiently with a smile, for their ultimate freedom.

[Window]

20. Not to worry. Some will be back at it in three days. LOL! This is a great start.

Peace

[closeupready]

23. Technically, he is, since he opposes same-sex marriage/marriage equality. But this is nice

and I hope he can change course on marriage equality, too, but we won't get it by just saying prayers.

[DWilliamsamh]

25. Um Technically he isn't. Never was.

From Mirriam-Webster.com:


homophobe
One entry found.

Main Entry:
ho·mo·phobe
Pronunciation:
\-ˌfōb\
Function:
noun
Date:
1971
: a person characterized by homophobia


homophobia
One entry found.

Main Entry:
ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation:
\ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function:
noun
Date:
1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports full civil rights accorded to heterosexual couples, for homosexual couples.

[Ms. Toad]

27. I don't know that I would call Obama homophobic, but

he does support discrimination because he opposes granting access to the state sponsored status (marriage) that is available to heterosexual couples.

Using the language of equality to describe his support for discrimination (separate but "equal") does not transform that discrimination into non-discrimination.

I do support whatever steps he takes toward equality (this being one of them) - but he is not where he needs on this matter to be and fancy language does not change that, and I will continue to challenge him on his missteps in this area.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. Yep. "He's wrong" is accurate enough. -nt

[QC]

41. But he HAS to discriminate! God is in the mix! n/t

[Ms. Toad]

45. No he doesn't.

God happens to be in my mix, too - and she is just fine with my marriage - and pissed off that the state doesn't recognize it.

[QC]

52. "God is in the mix" always makes me think of cake. n/t

[Terran]

76. I had a whole go-round with someone about the "God's in the mix"

comment (which Obama made at the Saddleback Forum). This person confidently claimed to me that that statement represented Obama's view of the legal situation regarding same-sex marriage. I looked up the transcript and it turned out to be very clear that he was in fact referring only to his own opinion and not the legalities of the matter.

[DWilliamsamh]

77. This is an honest question: Why does the "word" matter if the right are the same?

I honestly ask this question because I thing IF (and I KNOW it is a big if) in the eyes of the government (and that is what were are talking about here) the same rights responsibilities accrued to gay couple as strait couples, who have committed to a life long partnership, why does the government label of "marriage" make a difference?

let me say why I am asking this question... a LOT of the folks who object to gay marriage object based solely on the idea of using the word marriage. Poll after poll shows that even among those who object to the word marriage being applied to gay partners in life long declared committed relationships, a majority of them do NOT object to the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples being guaranteed to gay couples.

It seems like taking that objection away, and thus removing at least PART of the obstacle to full rights would be worth ditching the label - in the "official government categorization of one's personal relationship. WHo gives a fuck if some bigot or government official calls your married or not as long as the rights are guaranteed and protected?

And BTW, I don't care one way or another what people call themselves, or what the government calls them. To me the rights are the only thing that matters because this is a fight about equal treatment under the law. Even though the law can remove the sanctioned foot on your neck it can't make people renounce their personal prejudices and opinions. The civil rights laws of the 60's didn't erase racist attitudes, and full marriage rights will not remove homophobic prejudice - no matter what we label the couples.

[Zhade]

78. Because separate but equal never is, and if you think we won't call ourselves married anyway...

YOU'RE WRONG.

Duers are EXPECTED to support our equal right to marry, or they are NOT WELCOME HERE. That's from Skinner's own mouth.

[DWilliamsamh]

86. Calm down.... you are at a 10, you need to be at a 2

I understand very well the principle of separate but equal being not efficient and almost impossible. I am making a point about what is the real goal. Is the goal to be called married by the government, or is the goal to have all the rights responsibilities that accrue to heterosexual couples, designated as married, accrue equally to homosexual couples who have made the same sort of public commitment?

That is my only point. I support the latter, whether or not it is called marriage. Some time interim steps are needed to secure a full victory. It took 300 years for whites and blacks to be able to legally wed in this country, and it might just take a while before it is "legal" for gays to "marry." And interim steps may be needed. And it may need to happen on a state by state basis, as


I am not advocating that anyone "shut up" or accept half citizenship. WE ALL should fight for equal civil rights for all citizens. And I do. I know that in the world that actually exists, separate but equal is VERY hard (though I would argue NOT impossible) to achieve. The only reason the question is important is because I think it is useful in distinguishing "homophobes" - those who really do want to have discrimination in the law, from those (with whom you may disagree) who just aren't "comfortable" with the word "married" being applied to same sex couples, but have NO problem with acknowledging and having the government guarantee, all of those civil rights that come with marriage. I was just trying to distill the questions. They are separate questions and not equal.

[Ms. Toad]

80. For a number of reasons.

First, from a legal perspective the word used DOES matter.

The legal presumption is that if you use a different word you mean something different. That is the starting point for legal analysis. Even if you ultimately overcome that presumption, we (same gender couples) would be required to pay to fight the battle to overcome the presumption over and over again until each little nuance is decided (inheritance, federal taxation, rights to insurance, rights to adoption, etc.). That fee to get equal recognition alone makes it unequal - even if the intent is to create separate but equal institutions.

Second, because marriage is a legally recognized institution worldwide - and the interrelationship among states, between states and the federal government, between states and foreign governments, and between our federal government and foreign governments has been worked out over decades through state, federal, and foreign legislation and the courts.

Marriage is associated with literally thousands of rights and responsibilities that cross state and national boundaries - yet each marriage is created by - and on its face recognized only by - a single state. Absent the decades of legal wrangling to iron out how the laws all work together, everyone would have to marry again each time they moved, individuals could legally enter into marriages with multiple people merely by crossing state boundaries, inheritance would be a mess if an individual entered into successive marriages in different states then died in yet a third, and so on. To start over again with a different institution would literally require re-litigating and re-legislating everything.

Third, I am married - not civil unioned. Both in my faith community - and legally. To insist that I call it something else to appease people who illegitimately claim the word as their own exclusive term is an insult.

Edited for grammar.

[DWilliamsamh]

87. See my post above please. Congrats on your marriage. (n/t)

[Ms. Toad]

94. Thanks.

It will be 28 years in September. It's been 14.5 years since our faith community recognized our marriage (it took them 8 years of work to get there), and 4 years since our marriage was legally recognized.

[DWilliamsamh]

88. You last sentence is actually what I was addressing, hypothetically,

from the other side of the aisle so to speak. Do you not see that there are a LOT of people (not including me) who object simply because they feel it is "an insult" to their way of thinking and being in the world, to call the union of a same sex couple an insult? A LOT of those folks would be "on our side" if the word marriage were off the table. Maybe not all of them but enough that measures like Prop 8 wouldn't have a chance.

As to the rest of your post there is simply ZERO legal reason that a law could not be crafted that started from the explicit point of defining "x" as exactly the same for all legal reasons in this country/state as "marriage." None. No law can force another country to recognize our marriage laws. --say for instance in Saudi Arabia. Lets get the rights protected here in this country, they worry about the rest of the world recognizes our new laws.

We see this differently, but I wouldn't give a rats ass what someone did to "insult me" if my rights were the same as their's. That is a personal matter and not a matter for government control. I don't like to be called a nigger or a half-breed either, any better than faggot, but I don't think the government has a role in "protecting me" from insults. Having to have a thick skin against idiocy isn't ideal, but it is necessary, unless we want people arrested for "thought crime."

[Starry Messenger]

89. Unfortunately, that is not proving to be true.

Now that marriage is off the table, the bigots are taking away any chance at equal protection in several other areas as well for gay folks.

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11724683

" Four down, one to go.

The Utah Legislature snuffed out two more gay-rights bills Tuesday.

After lengthy public hearings, House committees rejected two measures: HB288, which would have allowed same-sex couples and other unmarried pairs to adopt and foster children; and HB267, which would have protected gay and transgender Utahns from housing and employment discrimination.

Two other gay-rights measures also are off the docket: One was pulled by its sponsor and the other died in committee. The final bill faces a test today.
...
in rejecting the latest measures, opponents painted being gay as a "choice" rather than an innate characteristic -- contrary to a broad consensus among psychological and medical experts.

"Adoption is not a right, it's a privilege. Those who choose alternative lifestyles suffer the consequences because they can't naturally produce between them," said Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, who joined a 5-1 vote to defeat HB288. "Heterosexual couples who cohabit also face consequences because they choose not to marry." "

[Ms. Toad]

90. Go spend some time researching marriage law

>>You last sentence is actually what I was addressing, hypothetically,from the other side of the aisle so to speak. Do you not see that there are a LOT of people (not including me) who object simply because they feel it is "an insult" to their way of thinking and being in the world, to call the union of a same sex couple an insult? A LOT of those folks would be "on our side" if the word marriage were off the table. Maybe not all of them but enough that measures like Prop 8 wouldn't have a chance.<<

Marriage is a LEGAL term. I am legally married. It is a legal relationship with my partner and the jurisdiction that created it. No one has any business interfering with that contract-like relationship merely to accommodate their religious bigotry.

Religious objections, they have NO relationship to the law. Churches are free to define their sacrament to exclude my marriage as they choose - just as my faith community has defined marriage to include mine.


>>As to the rest of your post there is simply ZERO legal reason that a law could not be crafted that started from the explicit point of defining "x" as exactly the same for all legal reasons in this country/state as "marriage." None. No law can force another country to recognize our marriage laws. --say for instance in Saudi Arabia. Lets get the rights protected here in this country, they worry about the rest of the world recognizes our new laws.<<

You need to spend some time studying how laws develop - specifically those around marriage. Marriage is not a single legal status. Within the United States it is 50 statuses which are similar from state to state, but not identical (assuming you don't count the US territories or the interplay with federal rights). The vast majority of marriage law is not statutory; it has been developed via hundreds, if not thousands, of individual cases with the costs borne by the individual families. It is not just a matter of writing a law. Go find a used domestic relations or estates casebook and spend some time with it to get an idea just how many cases it has taken to develop the inter-state recognition of marriages that currently exists just within the United States. Each of those cases in each of those states would need to be relitigated to create the interstate state-federal recognition for the new institution you are proposing to create. Even the majority of law was statutory, you would need to write those statutes in each of the 50 states and in the federal government. You really don't have a clue about how the intricate set of interrelating laws (case and statutory) and regulations have been created, or what it would need to create a similar structure for some new legal status.

As for other countries, there are already international laws and practices regarding recognition of other countries' marriages. The presumption is that a marriage from any country will be recognized by virtually every other country. The party opposing recognition has the burden to prove there is some legal reason not to recognize the marriage. You are suggesting removing that presumption - since there are NO existing presumptions regarding whatever other category you create - and placing the burden of creating that presumption on individual gay and lesbian families. As I noted earlier - placing that financial burden on LGBT families, in and of itself, makes any separate status inherently discriminatory.

[DWilliamsamh]

91. Not trying to "set the law on gay marriage."

I am not recommending anything of the sort. Saudi Arabia does not recognize gay marriage. Period. No matter what the law ids in the US, Saudi Arabia is not going to recognize gay marriage. If you show up at a hospiutal and say you are married to your partner who is a patient there and demand to be treated as such due to international law....well I think you get my point. It isn;t right and that is one reason I am glad I don't live there. Some countries DO mix religious and civil law. It is in their legal system.

I completely agree with you that religion has no place in making law in this country. Period.

BUT.....

My intention was NOT to suggest that I marriage law is simple, nor do I think "one statute constitutes the law" on marriage. In practicality however isn't it just as likely that all of those "thousands of previous cases" will be challenged based on the fact that at the time they were decided the legislatures, and jurists, "never intended them to be applied to same sex couples?"

Look, I am not interested in arguing against gay marriage because I believe in the civil equality of all of our citizens. I was engaging in a thought experiment aimed not at figuring out how to implement gay marriage most efficiently, but aiming at helping to make a distinction between folks who are against gay marriage because they want to keep civil rights from accruing to gay couples, and those who have no problem with those civil rights but just object to it being called marriage. One group is correctly identified as homophobic, and one is not. That is all.

And BTW, I sincerely thank you for your explanation of how complicated marriage laws are and the crazy web that constitutes the interweaving of the various statutes in the various states.

[Ms. Toad]

93. No, it is not just as likely...

>>In practicality however isn't it just as likely that all of those "thousands of previous cases" will be challenged based on the fact that at the time they were decided the legislatures, and jurists, "never intended them to be applied to same sex couples?<<

The path we are moving on now is very similar to the path taken for recognition of interracial marriages. Once it was decided that states must honor marriages created in other states (even if they were illegal at home), all the rights and responsibilities associated with that status followed without additional litigation. Shortly thereafter, all of the anti-miscegenation laws either vanished or were no longer enforced. After all, if an interracial couple could have a valid marriage by going across state lines and getting married, then returning home, there was really no point in banning "home grown" marriages. New York (which grants legal recognition to same gender marriages created elsewhere) will mostly likely follow that path very quickly.

We do have the extra barriers of all of those marriage discrimination statutes and amendments - which may require a bit of extra litigation, but not much once we get a more reasonable Supreme Court. My guess is we'll have marriage equality within 10 years.

Sorry if I sounded cranky - I should probably write an explanation when I'm not tired and cranky so I can cut and paste it the next time the discussion pops up again...

[DWilliamsamh]

95. Thanks for your thoughtful reply

I think at least you and I made some progress in understanding eachother a bit. And we need that more - on DU and elsewhere.

[closeupready]

37. Um, yes, he is, and you're not gay, so you don't know crap about homophobia

that your little dictionary doesn't tell you. have a nice day.

[QC]

55. No, things are only homophobic if straight people think they are.

That seems to be the rule around here now.

[closeupready]

56. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner folks!

[DWilliamsamh]

63. As I said to another in this thread....

Don't be a pompous ass. One need not be the victim of an "ism" to know what it is. And BTW you have NO clue what my sexuality is, much less my life experience. So let me revise and extend my remarks, "don't be a presumptuous pompous ass."

[DWilliamsamh]

58. Ohhhhh... so if I'm not "colored" I don't know what racism is either?

Don't be a pompous ass. One need not be the victim of an "ism" to know what it is. And BTW you have NO clue what my sexuality is, much less my life experience. So let me revise and extend my remarks, "don't be a presumptuous pompous ass."

[Terran]

59. Well, I'm gay

and I still say it's a stupuid misuse of the word. And anyway, Obama has a long record of being pro-gay that says otherwise. Calling him homophobic amounts to hysteria.

[closeupready]

60. You're entitled to your opinion.

But anyway, I corrected myself below. Cheers.

[DWilliamsamh]

64. Thank you....

That was my only point - the misuse and over use of "homophobia," as a charge and an adjective, is no more productive of desired eradication of that "ism" than the equivalent use of the word and charge of racism. To be sure there are homophobic folks out there and cowards who enable the truly discriminatory policies to exist and even tighten. But Obama ain't one of them.

[Runcible Spoon]

84. You may be gay, but your use of the word "hysteria" belies some insensitivity

I mean, you ARE clever to know the root and connotation of that word don't you?

[Terran]

48. Thank you...the most misused word at DU. n/t

[QC]

53. I think "Democrat" is probably the most misused word around here,

given how hard DU has swerved to the right this past year or so.

[Terran]

61. Are you, for example, saying...

that I'm not a Democrat because I protest the careless use of the word "homophobic"?

[QC]

62. How about the sort of person who would enter a positive thread and make a pointless anti-gay slam,

as happened here?

Or the people who have made a popular sport of slamming progressives, environmentalists, homos, etc.

You and I have both been here since the beginning. Be honest: did you ever think you would see DU become a place where blithe, casual slams on progressives would become so common? I sure didn't.

[Terran]

65. No, but to be honest it goes both ways.

I've seen some incredibly bigoted behavior here lately from people who no doubt do consider themselves progressive. I guess the bigger DU gets the wider the degree of opinion there is.

Can you point me to an actual anti-gay slam in this thread, as opposed to someone being a snarky jerk about Rick Warren (for instance)? I would think something that was truly anti-gay would be deleted...I would hope.

[QC]

66. Look for the first negative post in the thread, the neener neener post

dropped suddenly in the midst of what had been a very positive thread celebrating a small but powerfully symbolic change.

Someone just couldn't resist.

It's not exactly a slam, I will admit, but it is snarky and provocative and meant to open old wounds.

[DWilliamsamh]

68. Which one? (n/t)

[Terran]

70. I agree, that post is pointlessly provocative

and its like probably won't go away ever, because so many people mistake snark for substance. But we're all guilty of that at one time or another, it's often irresistable.

I was one of those people who didn't feel that the Warren invite was quite as big a deal as others thought. That caused a lot of hurt feelings, both against Obama and against some less-than-sensitive people here who truly didn't get it. In my optimism, I think that as Obama's fundamentally pro-GLBT agenda unfolds *carefully*, those wounds at DU will heal.

[QC]

74. I would love to put the Warren fiasco in the past, partly because of the fiasco itself

and partly because of the ugliness it unleashed here.

Some, however, clearly don't want us to get past all that.

[DWilliamsamh]

67. So disagreeing that Obama is a homophobe is an "anti-gay slam?"

Wow. Talk about intolerance of divergent point of view. The worst part is you have no CLUE how "pro-gay" I am. LOL. Too bad I have no incentive based on what I have read from you to share my point of view with you to form a bond of community, of based on the common ground that we no doubt share.

[QC]

69. No.

I was talking about the neener neener post up above, the one intended to revive the Warren ugliness.

[DWilliamsamh]

71. Ok. I apologize then. What neener neener post?

[QC]

73. Well, I can't "call out," but it's the post that

refers obliquely to the Warren fiasco and the hurt feelings over it.

There was no reason to bring that up in what had been a very positive, even celebratory, thread.

[Runcible Spoon]

85. Tied with "liberal/progressive"

Sigh.

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. This is an easy action with no political threat to President Obama

When he starts taking risks on behalf of my full rights as a human being and as a citizen -- when he actually supports equal MARRIAGE rather than Jim Crow substitutes, when he actually takes action to repeal DOMA and DADT -- then I will stand and cheer.

And I've never said President Obama was a homophobe. He is a bigot, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

[closeupready]

39. Okay, yes, I would like to correct myself - 'bigot' is better than 'homophobe'.

I stated that he is a homophobe, and so I take that back. He is a bigot, and believes homophobic things, but I will concede that one can argue that he is not a homophobe per se.

[FedUp_Queer]

43. Hmmm...

I don't know if he is a bigot. That seems to me to be a matter of the heart, which I'm not sure anyone can judge. But, as a gay person, I confess my impatience at the repeal of DADT and DOMA. We shall see what we shall see. This UN thing is a first step...and a positive one.

[riqster]

46. It is a good step in the right direction

...but yeah, it's an easy step. When he apologizes for his past insults and takes the hard steps I will revise my opinion.

[amyrose2712]

16. Nice nt

[Loudmxr]

17. I had to read it again to believe it. Whoopeee!!! At last we stand for JUSTICE again.

That's me and three friends playing a jig!!! C'mon and dance!!!!

[No Elephants]

18. This, of course, is more positive than the opposite position. However, all it say is that

homosexuals should not be arrested, detained or executed solely on the basis of sexual orientation. And, even at that, it has no teeth. It is not going to be enforced. Is it better than our prior position? Yes. Is it a huge victory, though? I don't know.

[iamjoy]

54. Yes, It's A Victory

On the surface, it really is no big deal - I mean saying that homosexuality shouldn't be a crime anywhere seems like a "well, duh" moment to us progressives and liberals.

But it is significant - if only in a symbolic way.

It accomplishes nothing - the UN can't make countries stop prosecuting and persecuting homosexual behavior, even if it had gotten a majority.

But what Obama is saying is "Yes, I agree with this and I'm willing to take a stand that may be unpopular with some at home and abroad."

If it's really no big deal, why wouldn't the Bush administration support it? I mean, do you really think Dubya believes it's okay to kill some one just for being gay? I for one do not, but he was still too cowardly to give his endorsement to a measure condemning such practices. He didn't want to be seen as "pro-gay rights."

There is still much discrimination and bigotry in this country against gays, by people who are hateful and/or uneducated. There is occasional insensitivity even by some support gay rights but have misconceptions ( ) For Obama to take a stand shows he's willing to be labeled "pro-gay."

And it gives me faith and hope that he's moving in the right direction and will actually accomplish positive things for equal rights. However, maybe it shows we will need to hold his feet to the fire a bit. He may not take the initiative to to move in the right direction on gay rights, but wait to be confronted with a decision and then come down on the good side. I know he's busy with the mess Dubya left, but we need to make sure civil rights for all Americans may be temporarily delayed, but not deferred.

[dcindian]

19. Outstanding

Stuff like this just show how the evil doer's like Bush and religion work. And show how our president and the values of Democrats can push back and make the world a better place for all.

+1 for the good guys.

[pleah]

21. K&R Good.

[lunatica]

22. Another crushing rock taken off our Progressive backs

I promise that when I disagree with something President Obama does, such as sending more troops to Afghanistan, that I will always keep in mind things like this and try to keep a balanced view. This is just to open a door that's been locked shut for too many years, because nothing is more shut down than hatred and bigotry.

To me this is a huge step because it's now official policy of the US that human rights extend to everyone. And that's a win win for everyone both here and in the world and incentive to continue the work of truly promoting and defending equal rights for all human beings.

[Jefferson23]

26. Another good move by Obama

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

28. I'm thrilled but sad that we didn't do so in the first place- buck fush

[Veruca Salt]

30. Fantastic news!!

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

32. Hopefully one of many Victories for

Human Rights.

[Politicub]

34. Such encouraging news!! K&R

Thank you President Obama!!

[snooper2]

35. I thought Rick Warren wouldn't let this happen?

wasn't he Obama's guy or something?

[Ms. Toad]

47. I don't recall anyone saying Warren controlled Obama

What I said, and what I "heard" many others saying was that inviting Warren to give the invocation was a kick in the gut.

It was, still is, and whatever positive steps Obama takes can't erase the hurt that insult did to supporters who set their own interests aside to help get Obama elected. If he grows from the experience (and the well deserved backlash) he will find a strong ally in the GLBT community. If he continues to ignore the impact that action had on our community, my support (and I suspect that of others, as well) will continue to be guarded. To paraphrase Bush "Fool me once, shame on you...Fool me twice...well, you can't fool me twice."

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

36. I'm embarrassed as an American that we were ever among the countries/groups of countries

that voted against this resolution. Glad to see we've changed that.

[Ohio Joe]

40. Agreed

It is nice to be on the side of sanity again.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

44. The damn pro-reality lobby strikes ago.

B.F.T. ('Bout Fucking Time.)

[jgraz]

49. admit it: how many of you wondered for a second "which way did he reverse it"?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

72. raising hand

...because talk is cheap.

I still think the bull needs to be taken by the horns, and the ban on same-sex marriage should be lifted. But at least this is a step in the right direction.

[Zhade]

79. Right here.

NT!

[Number23]

81. The answers to your query will be very telling.

[Toasterlad]

83. I Absolutely DId. Anyone Who's Been Paying Attention Would Have Wondered the Same.

The fella sends a decidedly mixed message about human rights.

[Ignis]

50. Great article from a great journalist.

I follow a lot of what MLG covers, good to see others do, too.

[GinaMaria]

57. BRAVO! n't

[superconnected]

75. Thank you Obama for put us back in the 21st century!

[iconicgnom]

82. good! See, it's that easy to just do the right thing.

[IndianaGreen]

92. Why is the frakkin Vatican getting to vote on this? It's not even a country!

Were it a country, it would be the world's pariah for its male-only government and its rampant homophobia, sexism, and pedophilia.

[donco6]

96. Well, it kinda is.

At least, in the eyes of the UN.

[IDFbunny]

97. will it still be okay to hate fundies?